place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all passed and finished, himself being exalted in immortality and glory. Christ offered himself (εDarat) once, saith the apostle; at one time. This I suppose is agreed. Then he "offered for himself, and his own sins," or not at all, for he offered but once, and at one time; where then did he thus offer himself, and when? In heaven upon his ascension, say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? "On the earth." Then he offered himself twice. No, by no means, he offered not himself on the earth; how then did he offer for himself on the earth? He did not indeed offer himself on the earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the earth, and therein he offered for himself; that is, he did, and he did not offer himself upon the earth!

§4. The way and manner of Christ's offering is directly opposed to the frequency of the legal sacrifices repeated daily as there was occasion. Those high priests offered (nab' nμepav) daily, on all occasions; he (εQara) once only. And cannot but observe, by the way, that this assertion is no less absolutely exclusive of the missatical sacrifices of the Roman priests, than it is of the Levitical sacrifices of the high priest of the Jewish church. In their mass itself they expressly "offer it to God a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead;" and this they do a thousand times more frequently, than the expiatory sacrifices were among the Jews. Whatever ends they therefore fancy to themselves, by pretending to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, they contradict the words of the apostle, and wholly evert the force of his argument. For if the same sacrifice which Christ offered be often offered, and had need so to be, the whole argument to prove the excellence of his priesthood, in that he offer

ed himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifice, falls to the ground. And hence also, that Christ offered himself at the supper the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent council affirms, Sess. xx, cap. 1; is to give the apostle the lie.

What he offered is expressed in the last place, and therein the reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those priests did. And this gives the highest preference of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For these priests had nothing of their own to offer, but Christ had that which was originally and absolutely his own, HIMSELF, a sacrifice able to atone for all the sins of mankind.

$5. (II.) Hence we may observe,

1. God requireth our faith and obedience in nothing but what is at once absolutely needful for us, and highly reasonable to every enlightened mind. Such was this priesthood of Christ, now proposed to the faith of the church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.

2. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. As the first part of this assertion declares the insufficiency of the Jewish priests, so doth the latter the vain pretence of the priests of Rome. The former the apostle proves and confirms expressly; and the latter is, on many accounts, a vile presumptuous imagination. For a poor sinful worm of the earth to interpose himself between God and Christ and offer the one in sacrifice to the other, what an issue is it of pride and folly!

3. The excellency of Christ's person and priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical priesthood was obliged to. No purifications, repetitions, succession, &c, belong to him.

4. No sacrifice could bring us to God, and save the church to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both priest and offering. Such an High Priest became us who offered himself once for all. How precious is a view of the glory of this mistery; how satisfactory to the souls of believers! What could not this priest prevail for in his interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause entrusted in any other hand, what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make atonement for? What sin, or whose, could it not expiate? "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world!"

VERSE 28.

For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

$1. The subject stated. $2. (I.) The different means of constituting the different priests. $3. (!I) The different times. $4. (III.) The difference of the persons. $5, (IV.) The difference in their state and condition, $6. Obser

vations.

$1. THE apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his preceding discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper foundation, which all along he hath built and proceeded on, with wonderful brevity in an elegant antithesis; wherein he considers,

1. The different means of the constitution of these different priests: on the one hand, the law; and on the other, the word of the oath.

2. The different times of their constitution; the one in the giving of the law; the other after the law.

3. The difference of their persons; those of the first sort were men, and no more; the other was the Son.

4. The difference in their state and condition; the former had infirmities, the latter is consecrated for ever.

§2. (I.) (0 voμos) the law, that is, the ceremonial law, as we call it; the law given in Horeb, concerning religious rites, the way and manner of the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle. And what doth the law do? (Kabio¬no) it appointeth. He speaks in the present time. So long as the law continueth in force and efficacy it appointeth such priests. Hereunto is opposed (λoyos tus opиwμwoias) the word of the oath, as the constituting cause of this new priest. It was the "word," the promise of God declared by his oath. And herein hath it many advantages above the law; for it implies particularly both an high federal solemnity, and the immutability of that counsel whence the matter sworn to proceeds.

$3. (II.) The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained, is included, on the one hand, and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given, whereby they were made priests; the latter was (μela Tov voμos) after the law, or the giving of it.

1. The priesthoood confirmed by an oath, and introduced after the law, was utterly inconsistent with the law and priesthood thereof. Wherefore, of necessity, either the law and the priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn to was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

2. This new priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient to the other, so as to leave it a place in the church. But as it was eminently above

it in dignity and benefit, so the use of the other was only to be an introduction to it, and therefore must cease thereon.

3. This new priesthood had its reasons, grounds, and representations long before the giving of the law; for besides a virtual constitution in the first promise, two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation in the priesthood of Melchisedec; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the oath of God after the law.

§4. (III.) The third difference is, that the law made (avbgwrous) men, to be high priests; that is, those who were mere men, and no more. In opposition hereunto, the word of the oath makes (viov) "the Son,” an High Priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole house, and whose the house is. Many ways there were, whereby he was manifested to be so; especially by his miraculous conception and nativtiy, and by his resurrection from the dead. Hence with respect to them he is sometimes called "the Son of God;" not that he became so thereby, but was only declared to be such. Into this therefore the apostle resolves the force of his argument the dignity of the person of our High Priest, the Son of God; for hereor the whole excellency and efficacy of his priesthood depends.

§5. (IV.) It is added in the last place, that the law made men priests, (exovlaç aσbɛvias) that had infirmity; subject to infirmities; and those were of two sorts, moral and natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. Hence they were obliged continually, to the last day of their lives, to offer sacrifices for their own sins; and the issue of their natural weakness was death itself; this seized every one of them, so as to put an